Debates of Oct. 17th, 2022

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would concur with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that we have to do everything to ensure that Canadians living with disabilities are not trapped in poverty. We need to remove barriers so that Canadians living with disabilities can find employment, but we also have to provide other supports. This is one additional support and it is one that I support if it is ever rolled out the door, because unfortunately it could be some time between now and the time that the money is actually delivered to Canadians living with disabilities. It has, frankly, been too long.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Keeping people with disabilities active in the labour market, finding accommodation measures and promoting their integration also helps to address the fact that too many people with disabilities are in a vulnerable situation. That was confirmed to me by the director of Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région, Marie-Christine Hon.

How does this fit into the discussions we need to have about accessibility? People with disabilities are not asking for much.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the member for Shefford raises an important issue about access and taking steps to reduce barriers to help those living with disabilities.

The member for Carleton provided a concrete measure in his bill that would help persons with disabilities be able to have that opportunity to enter the workforce through free, concrete measures within that bill, namely measurement, action and enforcement. It was very disappointing that the Liberals voted against that very good bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, inevitably, there will always be people with disabilities who cannot be gainfully employed. I hope they are not going to be ineligible because of that.

I want to ask, instead, about indigenous peoples with disabilities and others who have disabilities who live in rural and remote communities, communities that have a higher cost of living. I wonder if the member agrees that maybe there needs to be a supplement to this benefit for people who live in rural and remote communities.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have to do to address the cost of living is to tackle inflation, which is at a 40-year high. It is inflation that is the result of the Liberal government's out-of-control spending, propped up with the support of the NDP.

If the member is serious about reducing the cost of living and making life more affordable, that would be a good place to start.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the lack of benefits for people with disabilities and the poverty that is often the reality for them, and the sad state where they are actually being given an option of using MAID as a terrible solution to the problem.

Could the member speak to that, and maybe to some of the reasons why we want to get behind our folks with disabilities in Canada?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the record of the Liberal government in not listening to persons with disabilities and disabilities rights organizations when they expressed alarm at the reasonably foreseeable criterion being struck down by one judge in one decision.

We have seen heartbreaking cases now of people who have turned to MAID because of such things as a lack of adequate housing, which is something completely not what MAID was set up to do. When I asked the Prime Minister a question about that, instead of addressing the issue, and instead of showing some compassion, he said that we were wrapped up in ideology. I think that speaks to his attitude toward Canadians living with disabilities and how insensitive he is.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to boldly travel through time to 6:45 p.m. and see the clock as such.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today's question relates to the number of lives that could be saved if the government would instruct the RCMP to install automated external defibrillators, also known as AEDs, in each cruiser.

I have been raising this issue since the Liberal government came to power in 2015, but the government unfortunately has taken no action. By my calculation, about 300 lives would be saved every year if AEDs were installed in Canada's 5,600 RCMP cruisers. Let me tell members how I have come to that calculation.

The purpose of an AED is to reduce fatalities from the kind of heart attack known as sudden cardiac arrest, a pathology that typically starts with what is known as pulseless ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. An academic paper published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine makes the following remarkable assertion regarding this pathology: “Every patient with a witnessed ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest should survive. If the patient does not survive, the goal is to determine why.”

In principle, AEDs, which are the devices used to counter this kind of cardiac issue, should save a lot of lives. How many? Well, ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation are the source of 85% of all sudden cardiac arrest deaths. Among this population, if each cardiac crisis were witnessed and responded to instantly by a first responder equipped with an AED, there would in principle be a perfect survival rate. In practice, the survival rate is going to be lower, but when the rate is at its highest, in controlled, highly monitored situations such as airports and casinos, it is impressive. At O'Hare airport in Chicago, for example, the save rate is 75%.

However, time is of the essence. According to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, for every minute the application of an AED is delayed, the chance of survival drops by about 7% to 10%. After 12 minutes, the survival rate is under 5%. This is why the public policy responsible, both here and in the U.S., is focused so intensely on speeding up response time when a victim or bystander contacts 911. This is why police vehicles are equipped with AEDs in places like Vancouver, Kingston, Laval, Fredericton, Medicine Hat and even Smiths Falls, in my riding.

There is an AED in the trunk of every one of the over 150 cruisers of the Ottawa Police Service. As long ago as 2012, this resulted in 22 interventions and nine successful saves of heart attack victims. In 2013, there were 23 interventions and eight lives were saved, and so on, in a long record of success right here in Ottawa. Ottawa's experience, which is typical, shows that on average, one life will be saved every year for every 17 AEDs installed in police cruisers. There is no better place to put an AED than in the trunk of a police car.

AEDs that are purchased in bulk cost a little over $1,000 each. Training costs are essentially zero, as RCMP personnel are already trained, and the cost of responding to 911 calls is not a factor, as the police already do this. We can multiply this success rate by the number of cruisers in the RCMP. If each one of the 5,600 RCMP cruisers carried an AED, it would result in 320 lives being saved every year. Since an AED remains operational for 10 years, we could save 3,000 lives over the next decade at a cost of $2,000 per life.

With these considerations in mind, why is it that the government has not, after seven years in power, arranged to have AEDs in every RCMP cruiser in the country?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member, not only for his advocacy but also for his donation of AEDs to his local police service.

According to Heart and Stroke, approximately 40,000 Canadians experience sudden cardiac arrest each year, and 80% of these occur outside of a hospital setting. This is one of the reasons all RCMP officers are required to be trained and recertified in CPR and first aid, including the use of AEDs. The RCMP is committed to our communities, with CPR, AED and first aid training included in the standard first aid curriculum, in which all members are required to recertify every three years. This represents a demonstrable enhancement of our public safety role as first responders.

The RCMP is aware that some police services equip police vehicles with AEDs.

I was also present when we studied Motion No. 124 at the public safety committee, looking at the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska's private member's bill on the issue. AEDs increase the chances of survival by 75%.

At the time of our study, the Library of Parliament provided us with a 2014 report that the public safety committee had done on the economics of policing. Municipalities pay 60% of policing in Canada, and it takes up to 50% of their budgets. While I was doing some research on police forces in North America that have these devices in their cars, it appears that many of them got them through either donations or grants, much like the hon. member across the aisle did with his police service.

Currently, the RCMP provides contract policing services to all provinces and territories except Ontario and Quebec, as well as some 150 municipalities. These services are provided through the police services agreements, which see the costs for RCMP services shared by the provincial and municipal governments and the federal government.

In consultation with the RCMP, provinces, territories and municipalities establish the level of resources, budget and policing priorities in their respective jurisdictions. It is through these consultations and decisions by the government of local jurisdiction that the RCMP is allocated funding for the purchase of new equipment.

The financial impact of procuring AEDs for RCMP vehicles would also have to be completed in consultation with contract partners to determine the extent to which these devices could be deployed. Currently, AEDs have been approved for installation and used in select RCMP operational areas, including emergency medical response teams, some protective policing details, and in provinces where provincial policing standards require that AEDs be available.

Another important consideration that came up during our study of Motion No. 124 was that only 15% of Canadians live in communities that are serviced by the RCMP. Obviously, equipping RCMP vehicles would help, but it would not reach as many communities as we would like.

In equipping RCMP vehicles with AEDs, several operational rollout and financial considerations must be assessed, including consultations with our contract partners.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that very informative answer. There were a number of pieces of information that I was unfamiliar with.

One thing I picked up was her reference to what she calls contract partners, which really means the provincial and territorial governments. I am going to ask her if she is saying the following, that if the initiative were taken, say, by the government of Alberta or Saskatchewan, that would be sufficient to start the ball rolling in that province. She also indicated a willingness to work with private sector partners who provide the necessary funds to purchase these things.

May I assume that if that were to happen in some part of the country, and if the RCMP hierarchy were to resist, and it does appear that there has been resistance, institutionally, in the RCMP, that the government would override it and say, “Look, these things have been given for free. Please install them where they are being offered”?

Could she respond to those two questions?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to answer a question on RCMP operational details, but I think, as the hon. member knows, right now, the Alberta government is talking about getting out of contract policing and instituting its own police service.

I think, certainly, the hon. member has heard what I am saying, in that it requires consultation with the provincial or municipal partners before we can move forward. As he knows, the cost of this policing is split between the federal and provincial governments. If the hon. member had a private company that wanted to donate AEDs to all RCMP vehicles, I would be happy to work with him on that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for their care and encouragement. I could not do my job without their support.

On February 14, 2022, the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition issued a proclamation declaring a public order emergency. The anti-democratic, bouncy castle emergency order has been recognized around the world as a despicable, egregious violation of human rights. Canada's image has been tarnished internationally.

Canadians have been encouraging me to follow up on my request of the Prime Minister to stop his unacceptable campaign of hate and divisiveness against ordinary Canadians. Now that the Emergencies Act inquiry is under way, it is time to start focusing on the deep wounds in Canadian society created by the Prime Minister and his profane coalition.

Liberals need to accept that many Canadians believe those who disagree with them on policy matters are not wrong. Canadians struggle to understand how those on the big government, radical left side of the political fence could possibly hold so many wrong-sided views.

The trucker strike was brought about by widespread resentment of hysterical reporting throughout the pandemic by the Liberal bought-off media. The attempted cancellation of anyone who dissented over lockdowns, whether on scientific grounds or civil liberty grounds, further exacerbated the problem.

How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister or the Liberal Party when he and his caucus are on public record as misleading Canadians nine times on the need to invoke the Emergencies Act? For example, the NDP-Liberal coalition representative stated that “the invocation of the Emergencies Act...was only put forward after police officials told us they needed this special power”. That is false. No police service asked for the Emergencies Act.

Next, the NDP-Liberal coalition Minister of Finance got in on the act by grossly inflating estimates of the freedom convoy's impact on the economy. While Canadians are struggling to buy groceries and heat their homes, this same minister directed public servants to run around and waste taxpayer dollars by begging local Ottawa businesses to accept money for non-existent losses. In fact, after the severity of the Liberal pandemic lockdown, many businesses enjoyed a boom in business.

The Prime Minister and his coalition's false accusations are interpreted by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as accusation in a mirror. This is the rhetorical practice of falsely accusing others of conducting, plotting or committing precisely the same transgressions one plans to commit against them.

The claim by the Prime Minister and senior members in the Liberal Party that members of the freedom convoy were racists, misogynists and undesirables is a textbook example of the demonizing and dehumanizing that comes by labelling certain groups in society as undesirable. An appalling example of this divisiveness is when the Prime Minister accused a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, my Conservative colleague, the member for Thornhill, who is Jewish, of standing with racists.

Canadians see the hypocrisy in the Prime Minister accusing others of being racist when the Prime Minister enjoys dressing up in costumes and in blackface to make fun of other people's cultures and skin colour. The accusation is a propaganda technique that has been used in non-genocidal and other forms of persecution committed against Jews, Blacks and first nations, among others.

It is time to face some inconvenient truths about the Prime Minister. His behaviour is dividing our country. Being angry all the time is not demonstrating leadership. To this day, members of the Liberal Party refuse to condemn the Prime Minister's racist act of wearing blackface.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, holy smokes, the rhetoric and misinformation coming from the other side of the House is a bit hard to respond to, but I am going to do my best.

Last winter, safety concerns from illegal blockades had shut down businesses, prevented citizens from moving about in several Canadian cities and cut off supply chains, hampering the ability of small business owners to contribute to the well-being of their families and communities.

We had a large blockade in the city of Ottawa and other communities were also impacted. Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and cities within these provinces all faced illegal blockades that threatened people's safety and livelihoods. The situation was so critical that the Province of Ontario, City of Windsor and City of Ottawa all declared states of emergency.

The Government of Canada knew that a safe resolution to these illegal blockades would require the collaboration of all partners. That is why we engaged closely with law enforcement and provincial, territorial and municipal officials to share situational updates and intelligence and explore the ways we could support one another. These discussions were ongoing throughout the crisis.

The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was informed by these discussions and consultations. The ultimate goal was always to bring an end to the blockades peacefully. In full transparency, we have made public a document that provides the reasons for issuing the declaration of a public order emergency. This fulfills the requirement in subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act, and the Government of Canada is pleased to provide this public information.

In addition, the Government of Canada has provided a public document describing the consultations we undertook before invoking the act. This document clearly demonstrates that we were closely engaged with all key partners in order to bring all expertise to the table to solve this public order crisis.

I would encourage my colleagues to review these public documents. They would make clear that, for several weeks last winter, illegal blockades were growing, strengthening and threatening law and order in numerous communities. Provinces, territories, municipalities and law enforcement all clearly communicated their views and concerns to the Government of Canada. Crucially, these partners asked the Government of Canada to lend support to the police of jurisdiction to counter the illegal activities.

We explored all other possible strategies to counter and to bring a peaceful conclusion to the many illegal blockades in Canadian communities at the time. It was at this time, and following extensive and ongoing discussions, that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was made. This was not an easy decision and we took the path with an appropriate sense of gravitas.

Importantly, invoking the act provided law enforcement with additional tools that allowed them to bring an end to the blockades. I must reinforce that this peaceful resolution was achieved, in large part, because of our close and ongoing consultation with provinces, territories, municipalities and law enforcement.

The Government of Canada did not keep the Emergencies Act in place any longer than necessary. We revoked it as soon as possible once it had achieved its intended purpose and law enforcement no longer needed the additional tools.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a secret memo, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, rejected the false claims by the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition that the freedom convoy was infiltrated by Nazis. According to CSIS, the freedom convoy participants considered themselves to be patriotic Canadians standing up for their democratic rights. The Canadian flag was the most prevalent flag on display in the crowd, likely reflecting participants' belief they were patriotic Canadians standing up for their democratic rights.

CSIS went on to advise the government that a small number of individuals displayed handwritten statements or images on their flags in an attempt to focus their message. Specifically, several added a swastika to the flag, not necessarily to identify as Nazis, but to imply the Prime Minister and the federal government were acting like Nazis by imposing public health mandates.

The memo marked “secret” was dated February 2, 2022. It concluded by reminding the NDP-Liberal far-left coalition that freedom of expression is constitutionally protected in Canada.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a step back and remember what it was like here in Ottawa last winter. While the hon. member and many of her colleagues were playing footsies with the illegal blockade, many Canadians were suffering. Many Canadian businesses were suffering. They were being held hostage by these illegal blockades. People did not feel safe going about their lives in their own communities.

I am pleased to share with the hon. member a quote from the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, who told the following to members at the public safety committee: “I...want to thank the federal government for invoking the federal Emergencies Act.” He went on to say, “From a policing perspective, the legislation provided the OPS with the ability to prevent people from participating in this unlawful protest”. He referred to the invocation of the act as a “critical piece” of their efforts.

Health

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in May I asked the Minister of Health what scientific advice he had received in regard to travel mandates. Today I ask the same question.

On September 26, the ministers of health, public safety and transport announced the lifting of the pandemic precautions effective October 1 by allowing the special orders under the Quarantine Act to expire. This effectively meant that foreign nationals no longer needed to be vaccinated to enter the country, incoming travellers would not be subject to random mandatory COVID–19 tests, unvaccinated Canadians would no longer have to isolate, travellers would no longer have to report or monitor for COVID–19 symptoms, the wearing of face masks on planes and trains was no longer mandatory as well, and submitting public health information through the ArriveCAN app would effectively become optional.

While Conservatives have been appealing to the government for a long time to lift the mandates, and we are happy to see them gone, my questions remain as follows: What was scientific about October 1? What evidence was this decision based on? Why was Canada so slow to lift the mandates compared to other countries?

The second issue I would like to raise tonight relates to the ArriveCAN app. Like a lot of Canadians this summer, I used the ArriveCAN app. I went to visit some family in the Netherlands. When I came back home I was on a flight through Iceland, and I had to use the ArriveCAN app. I did it properly to get on the plane, and I did it for my spouse as well. When we arrived in Toronto the app had broken down. I went to the CBSA officer, who said that was a normal thing to happen and that it had been happening quite a bit.

It was not an easy process, but we went through and it all got worked out. However, that goes to say, as some other members in the House of Commons have raised today, we wonder why the ArriveCAN app was so poorly designed and why it cost so much money.

Right now, Canadians are recovering from the COVID–19 pandemic and government restrictions. Community groups are starting to refocus and get membership out again. Sports groups are doing the same thing. That is all well and good, but I would be remiss if I did not mention in the chamber that right now Canada needs to look back very closely with respect to what happened during the last three years.

My other question to the government today is this: Would it consider a royal commission to determine how much money was spent on COVID–19 programs, how much additional money was spent during the COVID–19 pandemic, what consequences of that spending were, and what the long-term impacts both for our society and our fiscal coffers will be?

We are in a period of inflation right now, and we need to be very careful about how we spend money moving forward, but Canadians are equally concerned about how their rights are going to be protected moving forward as well. I think we have a responsibility in the House to ensure that critical work is being undertaken, so I would like to petition the government with my time today to empower every parliamentary committee, if not a royal commission, to look at program spending over the last three years and look at which programs worked, which ones did not, which ones cost the most, which ones had the most take-up and which ones did not have any take-up at all. A lot of things were spent on, and we do not know the consequences and the impacts of that spending.

We need to look at how the rights of Canadians under the charter are going to be protected moving forward. There are a lot of unanswered questions. I know there are some cases before the federal courts, but I think here in Parliament we need to look very closely at things such as the ArriveCAN app.

I will give one final example. Just three weeks ago, before the October 1 rescindment of the Quarantine Act, a senior citizen constituent who has never had a smart phone was told by a CBSA officer that he needed to get a letter from his MP to go into the United States for the day and come back. That is not what the charter calls for, and we need to stop those things from happening again.